Wikidata talk:Notability

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Notability.
Use the "Add topic" button in the upper righthand corner to begin a new discussion, or reply to one listed below.

For discussion of the "Exclusion criteria" section of this guideline, please see the /Exclusion criteria subpage.

Previous discussion at Wikidata:Project chat[edit]

See Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Notability.

Notability criteria for Commons[edit]

Hi, I copy the discussion from c:Commons talk:Structured data/Get involved/Feedback requests/Properties for Commons#Notability criteria for separate items, as this needs more input. Should these objects have a separate item in Wikidata? Thanks for your comments. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I would say yes. We can find references for that in currency catalogues.
  • I would say yes. We can find references for that in currency catalogues.
For coins and banknotes, I would expect each distinct value to be notable (and in many cases we'll already have items, e.g. 1 paisa (Q28179451)), I'm not sure whether to split the variants (e.g. we could have two items, one for the nickel-brass version, one for the aluminium version, or we could have one item which has start/end dates on the material used (P186) statements), but I wouldn't expect each year/location of minting to have separate items. I wouldn't expect a single individual coin/banknote to have an item unless it's notable in some way (e.g. has an identifier as part of a museum collection). - Nikki (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Nikki: Thanks for your message. There are already 3 different coins for 1 paisa (Q28179451), and there may be more. For 1 rupee, there would be at least a dozen different coins over the years. So how do we split the information? Otherwise, I agree with you about notability. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say all of these variants should be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should re-allow links to File: namespace? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Wikidata policy for Draft namespace for Wikiversity[edit]

On Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items there is a discussion. On Phabricator is task T201774 requesting WikiData item identifiers display on resources conscripted into Wikiversity Draft: namespace. The last entry to Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items and fourth from last on T201774 questions the possible need for consensus here. Opinions requested here and on the Phabricator. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would Wikiversity be different from other wikimedia sites in treatment of the Draft namespace? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
See Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Which presents arguments from you and a link to a talk page you wrote - is there a generic reference on how Wikiversity treats Draft namespace differently? It sounds like it's for pages that aren't ready to be part of the main content, so I'm not sure why we should consider them notable? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The talk page contains the exact links to the opinions written by others in addition to mine, please see v:Draft_talk:Craters_by_radiation#Draft namespace opinions. Our guideline for consensus is also linked to source and is stated here: v:Draft_talk:Craters_by_radiation#Consensus. The first discussion of Draft: ns was closed in January 2018 and subsequent opinions and previous opinions were ignored. Is there a generic reference on how Wikiversity treats Draft namespace differently? Yes, there is, the generic reference is in the history of the pages conscripted into Draft: namespace. Here's one example, v:Art, from its history (1) at 22:13, 1 January 2018‎ Marshallsumter [changed an external link] (0)‎ . . (→‎External links), (2) at 20:47, 21 March 2018‎ MaintenanceBot [Dave Braunschweig bot] (0)‎ . . (MaintenanceBot moved page Art to Draft:Art without leaving a redirect: Per Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Main Page "Lectures"), and (3) at 23:09, 12 May 2018‎ Michael Ten (discuss | contribs | block)‎ m . . (62,526 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Michael Ten moved page Draft:Art to Art: seemed to be moved by a bot without clear rational. move to wherever appropriate if necessary. good luck. ) and move was not reverted. Here's a second, v:Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules from its history (1) at 00:28, 9 March 2018‎ Atcovi (discuss | contribs | block)‎ m . . (6,208 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎Importance of Carbon: why is this here?), (2) at 20:41, 21 March 2018‎ MaintenanceBot (discuss | contribs | block)‎ m . . (6,193 bytes) (0)‎ . . (MaintenanceBot moved page Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules to Draft:Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules without leaving a redirect: Per Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Main Page "Lectures"), and (3) at 16:13, 7 May 2018‎ Atcovi (discuss | contribs | block)‎ m . . (6,193 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Atcovi moved page Draft:Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules to Organic Chemistry – Carbon Chemistry and Macromolecules without leaving a redirect: not a draft... why was this moved in "draft" in the first place?). Here's one more, v:Draft:Craters by radiation from its history (1) at 18:27, 29 July 2018‎ Marshallsumter (discuss | contribs | block)‎ m . . (111,164 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Marshallsumter moved page Astronomy/Craters to Craters by radiation: Title focused on origins of craters.), (2) at 16:15, 3 August 2018‎ Dave Braunschweig (discuss | contribs | block)‎ . . (111,190 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (Delete), and (3) at 20:02, 5 August 2018‎ Guy vandegrift (discuss | contribs | block)‎ m . . (111,200 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Guy vandegrift moved page Craters by radiation to Draft:Craters by radiation: As per Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16#Main_Page_"Lectures" ). One more important section from v:Draft talk:Craters by radiation#Keeping lectures as main space pages was opposed by consensus?. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter: You're telling us what happened, but I don't seen an explanation of why it happened. What is different about these pages than other wikiversity pages that were not moved to draft? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Good question! I'll try to answer it. Here's what one other custodian wrote "But maybe it was all about the completition status of the lecture pages, but I havent find out more about it. Just a link to Wikipedia and what it does with Wikiversity. Non completed pages are all around, why it is a problem now?--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)" from v:Wikiversity_talk:Requests_for_Deletion#Draft_ns_discussion. "What is different about these pages than other wikiversity pages that were not moved to draft?" I'm the creator or most recent contributor to these 96% moved to Draft: ns. They are a resource called a lecture. So is v:Stars of which I am the creator and principal contributor. So is v:Radiation astronomy/Comets. There is no difference! --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter, ArthurPSmith: I've changed this section title to match the actual topic that we are discussing. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: As to why it is happening, a recent new volunteer user on Wikiversity sent me the following comment which I believe addresses the issue of why, "I wouldn't mind restarting my endeavor on Wikiversity, provided I won't be hassled by people like that professor who is far more interested showing his authority than he is in Wikiversity." That's the full quote! And, just to be clear I provided all references in v:Draft talk:Craters by radiation. You are correct I was asking Wikidata to follow its consensus, not change its rules! --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately I've found your quoting to be rather selective; the link provided on the admin page was much more informative regarding the full discussion. At this point I don't see any good reason to change Wikidata rules to accommodate this Wikiversity issue, it needs to be resolved there. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Google search comparisons[edit]

Wikipedia draft - w:Draft:Survival. Google results: No specific result but e.g. "Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement - Wikipedia - totgor totgor.com/info/gumoresky/browse.php?u...b=13 Mar 27, 2018 - Note that there is a draft for the Survival page located at Draft:Survival. Please be ... Successful nominations are listed at Wikipedia:Articles for ..."

Wikiversity draft - v:Draft:Two-word terms. Google results: Specific result "Draft:Two-word terms - Wikiversity https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Draft:Two-word_terms Apr 7, 2018 - "The compound two-word term is employed to give more precision than either word alone would have, not being exact synonyms. And each ..."

Google searches Wikiversity Draft: ns but not Wikipedia Draft: ns! --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like controlled by __NOINDEX__ magic word, I don't think a magic word can be enough to change a policy. --61.170.244.181 23:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree which means only Wikipedia Draft: ns where __NOINDEX__ magic word is used should be affected by the filter per change by user:Matěj Suchánek on 10 August 2018. --Marshallsumter (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Styles pages[edit]

With the rollout of TemplateStyles, I have created some styles pages on en.WP. Today, one of those pages was connected.

I think these should probably be banned under the template-related bullet, regardless of whether they are subpages or specifically in the template space (c.f. module space).

--Izno (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Endorse. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just wondering, which suffixes to exclude? /(foo).css? /(foo).js? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    I think this question is okay, just to verify: all TemplateStyles pages, regardless of location (Template space, Module space, as a subpage or as a main page). --Izno (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Such pages are like MediaWiki: pages, should be maintained differently by wikis. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMisterSynergy (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Izno, Matěj Suchánek, MisterSynergy: If there are no oppose comments before 20 Sep, then I will do such modification. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)